Jump to content
Robert Wilson

US Navy UFO video

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, taeto said:

It must be a true coverup; the video appears to have been pulled. I will run to get my tinfoil hat now.

I despair, when I see a truely held belief ridiculed for no more reason than, it's not what 'we' think is true; I am an athiest and a great believer in science, but I'll defend anyone who chooses to believe, anything I can't refute with, actual evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not despair. After all, you are expected to be the humourless one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, taeto said:

Do not despair. After all, you are expected to be the humourless one.

But surely, I'm the resident cut up~/wit???

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 11:10 PM, Robert Wilson said:

I claim that this is just a small insect on the camera lens, and I don't understand how people can be so blind and not see it.

The fact that these objects were picked up on multiple radar systems from multiple different points in space many miles away and at different times rules out the theory that it was an insect stuck to the lens.

A Boeing FA 18 F Super Hornet is a 70.5 million dollar aircraft flown by some of the most highly trained pilots in the world.  The idea that it was a "bug stuck on the lens" is illogical.  

As for the general veracity of the encounter, here's some additional information:

The Nimitz incident or Nimitz encounter refers to a series of UFO sightings that took place off the coast of San Diego, California in 2004 during a US military war games exercise involving Carrier Strike Group 11. 

Thus far six personnel involved in the war game have come forward describing what they saw:

All of these gentlemen describe the same thing:  an aerial vehicle maneuvering in such a manner as to defy the known laws of physics (and with remarkably similar characteristics as what Lazar described).  There are numerous other articles available online regarding the Nimitz incident, including pieces in the Washington Post and New York Times.  There is also FLIR footage of the aerial vehicle that was witnessed, captured from one of the Super Hornets that were tasked with intercepting it.  (This footage is shown during Fravor's interview on Rogan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I despair, when I see a truely held belief ridiculed for no more reason than, it's not what 'we' think is true; I am an athiest and a great believer in science, but I'll defend anyone who chooses to believe, anything I can't refute with, actual evidence.

That's religion, not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

That's religion, not science.

A Godcake, could be considered both...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The fact that these objects were picked up on multiple radar systems from multiple different points in space many miles away and at different times  

Where is the analysis that combines all of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, swansont said:

Where is the analysis that combines all of this?

See my post above.  I included links to the numerous Navy personnel who were there that day. 

They describe from an operational standpoint exactly what happened, what systems they were in charge of, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

See my post above.  I included links to the numerous Navy personnel who were there that day. 

They describe from an operational standpoint exactly what happened, what systems they were in charge of, etc.

A video from a person is not an analysis from multiple radars, which you claim exists. Where is that analysis, which would definitively show distances, velocities and accelerations via triangulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, swansont said:

A video from a person is not an analysis from multiple radars, which you claim exists.

"A video from a person".   I think you mean six different video interviews of six different Navy veterans who were there that day and witnessed the event firsthand.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Where is that analysis, which would definitively show distances, velocities and accelerations via triangulation.

Where?  In the custody of the US Navy.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

"A video from a person".   I think you mean six different video interviews of six different Navy veterans who were there that day and witnessed the event firsthand.

Where?  In the custody of the US Navy.    

People are bad at judging distances and speeds (because you need distance to know speed), so there is no quantitative analysis from eyewitness reports. They saw something. AFAICT, that's about as much as you can say.

Is there even support for saying this showed up on multiple radar screens? I have seen this claimed. What I have not seen is substantiation of the claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, swansont said:

People are bad at judging distances and speeds (because you need distance to know speed), so there is no quantitative analysis from eyewitness reports. They saw something. AFAICT, that's about as much as you can say.

Correct.  People are bad at judging distances / speeds, etc, which is why the US military does not rely on its personnel "eyeballing it".  Instead, these crewmen reported what they measured on their AEGIS radar systems,  the most advanced radar systems in the world.  Kevin Day, for example, was in the Combat Information Center on the USS Princeton and was the Senior Chief Radar Operator on duty that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System

Quote

Is there even support for saying this showed up on multiple radar screens? I have seen this claimed. What I have not seen is substantiation of the claims.

Again I would refer you to the six interviews supporting exactly this fact - interviews which you don't seem to want to watch.  

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when unidentified anomalies in equipment ( no matter how 'advanced' ) were called 'glitches' in the system.

Now they are labelled UFOs, which while the correct acronym, implies 'extra-terrestrial' origins to the tin-foil hat crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MigL said:

I remember when unidentified anomalies in equipment ( no matter how 'advanced' ) were called 'glitches' in the system.

Now they are labelled UFOs, which while the correct acronym, implies 'extra-terrestrial' origins to the tin-foil hat crowd.

Why do many people always automatically correlate 'unidentified flying object'  with 'aliens'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Correct.  People are bad at judging distances / speeds, etc, which is why the US military does not rely on its personnel "eyeballing it".  Instead, these crewmen reported what they measured on their AEGIS radar systems,  the most advanced radar systems in the world.  Kevin Day, for example, was in the Combat Information Center on the USS Princeton and was the Senior Chief Radar Operator on duty that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System

Again I would refer you to the six interviews supporting exactly this fact - interviews which you don't seem to want to watch.  

Our rules require that you provide the information without requiring that anyone watch videos. You've been a member long enough to know how things work here.

Four sailors on the Princeton do not represent independent lines of information. They count, at most, as one report that it was picked up on the Princeton's radar.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, swansont said:

How do you come to that conclusion?

The air force's report is a video?

You're a hard man swansonT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, MigL said:

I remember when unidentified anomalies in equipment ( no matter how 'advanced' ) were called 'glitches' in the system.

This is initially what they thought.  According to Senior Chief Radar Operator, Kevin Day ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2zRabdvKnw&t=961s)  and AEGIS Computer Technician Gary Voorhis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YhlvUg2yk4&t=21s) when the tracks first appeared the crew immediately suspected a glitch / system malfunction.  They subsequently ran a series of diagnostic tests to identify the error, of which they found none.   Instead, after the diagnostic tests,  the radar tracks only became more clear.  

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Four sailors on the Princeton do not represent independent lines of information. They count, at most, as one report that it was picked up on the Princeton's radar.

The aforementioned crew of the USS Princeton and Commander David Fravor of the VFA-41 Black Aces, who were tasked with intercepting the unknown object.  So that makes two independent lines of information (of highly credible witnesses).

Here's another incident that happened in 2015, this time on the East Coast of the US: 

Between 2014 and 2015, seasoned pilots in the U.S. Navy experienced a number of harrowing encounters with UFOs during training missions in the U.S. While pilots were mid-flight, their aircraft cameras and radar detected seemingly impossible objects flying at hypersonic speeds at altitudes up to 30,00 feet (9,144 meters); these mysterious UFOs did so with no visible means of propulsionThe New York Times reported on May 26.

Sources:  https://www.livescience.com/65585-ufo-sightings-us-pilots.html

Sources:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html

Quote

Now they are labelled UFOs, which while the correct acronym, implies 'extra-terrestrial' origins to the tin-foil hat crowd.

It's interesting how people still deride and dismiss those who think it likely that extra terrestrials may have visited Earth.  Publicly state that you believe in alien life on other planets due to the mathematical odds and how many viable exoplanets are out there, and you will be lauded from every corner.  But state that you think extra terrestrials may have actually visited Earth and suddenly you're a heretic who's to be tarred and feathered.  A bit incongruent / illogical, in my view.  Really it all depends on your perspective regarding the Fermi Paradox.      

Note:   "In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][611 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.["7]  

That aside, the only thing that can be said for a fact is that there were "Unidentified Flying Objects"  observed that day, tracked by radar and seen by the pilots and crew.  Whether they were some kind of advanced government technology or objects of alien origin is the only real question.  

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

You're a hard man swansonT...

I take it that’s a “no”

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The aforementioned crew of the USS Princeton and Commander David Fravor of the VFA-41 Black Aces, who were tasked with intercepting the unknown object.  So that makes two independent lines of information (of highly credible witnesses).

The incident showed up on radar of the aircraft?

 

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Here's another incident that happened in 2015, this time on the East Coast of the US: 

Irrelevant in regard to my question.

 

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It's interesting how people still deride and dismiss those who think it likely that extra terrestrials may have visited Earth. 

Yes, well...physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, well...physics.

That's not a logical rebuttal.  The field of physics is an ever changing / evolving field.  It's highly probable that physics can accommodate the phenomenon / technology described; human beings just haven't discovered it yet.  Given the evolution of knowledge and technology over the past few centuries it's irrational to think that humans have a totally complete understanding of physics.  That would be quite a limited mindset, actually.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

 

The incident showed up on radar of the aircraft?

According to David Fravor they were guided to the intercept point by the Princeton, at which point they made visual contact with the UFO and attempted to intercept it. 

Quote

Irrelevant in regard to my question.

Completely relevant.  The pilots in the 2015 encounter experienced similar craft which were picked up on FLIR and on their radar.

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

According to David Fravor they were guided to the intercept point by the Princeton, at which point they made visual contact with the UFO and attempted to intercept it. 

So the 'UFO' did not show up on the F/A-18 Super Hornet radar.
And as the Raytheon AN/APG-79 AESA radar is a fairly advanced piece of kit, I find it hard to believe one radar would detect it, while the other did not.
Unless it was a 'glitch', or an electromagnetic disturbance where the wider frequency modes of the ship-based radar would have a better chance of detection.
( most airborne radar use I band, 8-12 GHz, pulse doppler )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, MigL said:

So the 'UFO' did not show up on the F/A-18 Super Hornet radar.
And as the Raytheon AN/APG-79 AESA radar is a fairly advanced piece of kit, I find it hard to believe one radar would detect it, while the other did not.
Unless it was a 'glitch', or an electromagnetic disturbance where the wider frequency modes of the ship-based radar would have a better chance of detection.
( most airborne radar use I band, 8-12 GHz, pulse doppler )

Well, it wasn't a glitch on the Princeton.  That much can be ruled out as A.) the pilots and crew saw the UFO with their naked eye upon intercepting it.  B.) on the Princeton, a diagnostic test was run on the radar and no problems were found  C.)  video / FLIR footage filmed the UFO 

You make an interesting point about the type of radar employed on the Super Hornets.  According to David Fravor, upon intercepting the object the pilots tried to lock on to it, but the radar was jammed and they were not able to obtain a signature.

 

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see an electromagnetic disturbance, such as lightning.
And while a weather radar would certainly pick it up, I'm not sure an I band pulse doppler radar would.

Diagnostics only look for 'known' glitches.
Say there was excessive solar flare activity, which might affect a wide band radar, would that show up on the diagnostics the next day, if the solar activity had subsided ?

I don't think I'd be jumping to extra-terrestrial conclusions as my first choice; just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MigL said:

I can see an electromagnetic disturbance, such as lightning.
And while a weather radar would certainly pick it up, I'm not sure an I band pulse doppler radar would.

According to the crew the weather that day was clear, no clouds or precipitation, no storms, etc.  

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Diagnostics only look for 'known' glitches.
Say there was excessive solar flare activity, which might affect a wide band radar, would that show up on the diagnostics the next day, if the solar activity had subsided ?

If there were not numerous eye witness sightings, then I think the "radar glitch" argument would be more credible.  But when you have numerous crew all reporting the same thing and there is video evidence from one of the fighters?  That puts the radar glitch argument to rest, in my view.  

6 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't think I'd be jumping to extra-terrestrial conclusions as my first choice; just sayin'.

Maybe, maybe not.  It was some kind of physical craft, that much is clear.  Advanced drone technology being tested by Uncle Sam?  Who knows.  600 billion USD per year will buy you some nice toys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It was some kind of physical craft

Then why didn't it show up on aircraft radar ?
Electromagnetic stealth being prototyped ?
( look up the Northrop-Grumman Tacit Blue stealth demonstrator's shape )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, MigL said:

Then why didn't it show up on aircraft radar ?
Electromagnetic stealth being prototyped ?
( look up the Northrop-Grumman Tacit Blue stealth demonstrator's shape )

Interesting.  The physical design of the Tacit Blue does closely correspond with what Commander Fravor described seeing as they intercepted it.   Looks like the TB was developed back in the late 70s - 80s, almost half a century ago.   That's a long time when it comes to R+D in the US military.  However, this incident occurred in 2004 - about 8 years after the TB was unveiled, so perhaps it wasn't the same craft, or a variation of it at least - "public model" vs. "classified model".

Interesting also is the purported use of the TB: Unveiled by the U.S. Air Force on 30 April 1996, the Tacit Blue Technology Demonstration Program was designed to prove that such an aircraft could continuously monitor the ground situation deep behind the battlefield and provide targeting information in real time to a ground command center.  

The Princeton crewmen reported that the objects appeared at very high altitudes on the AEGIS radar (80,000 ft) and then rapidly descended to 20,000 feet, and then rapidly descended again to surface level (in this case the ocean).  This would be the ideal way to penetrate behind enemy lines: ascend high above enemy radar, cross into enemy airspace, and then rapidly descend and maintain a "low probability of radar intercept" once at the desired altitude for monitoring the battle space.

If this is the case, it would make sense that these would be unmanned vehicles / drones.  

Further, the war games exercise with Carrier Strike Group 11 (Nimitz / USS Princeton / Black Aces) would provide an ideal testing ground for these craft.  What better way to test classified equipment than put it up against your best (albeit unwitting)  pilots / personnel / equipment in an active war game and see if they are able to intercept / neutralize the threat?

This is a plausible scenario, but what remains unexplained is the maneuverability of the aircraft.  If it is advanced government technology they have indeed figured out a remarkable new form of propulsion.  

Side Note:  Here is a recent project DARPA has been working on relating to radar (anti-jamming).  It's called: Hyper-wideband Enabled RF Messaging (HERMES).  https://www.darpa.mil/program/hyper-wideband-enabled-rf-messaging

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.